[kelnos]

There must be a way to do advertising that respects the consumer, and doesn't use some form of sketchy manipulation to achieve the desired goal. And yet the vast majority of advertising is (to me) offensive.

> Anyone who hates advertising this much should show their commitment by working at an organization that does not advertise.

That's a rather childish and immature rejoinder. The world of employment simply doesn't work that way, and people's job mobility is not infinite and frictionless.

[blodovnik]

People were offended by advertising in the same way in the 1970s.

Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.

[prophesi]

That's because we discovered psychological manipulation for advertising in the 30's thanks to Freud's nephew, Bernays. And it was brought to light when psychology hit center stage in the 70's after the psychedelics lash-back. So our current advertising methodology is a very recent phenomenon.

[badrequest]

This suggests (disingenuously) that they were offended in the same way.

[dwaltrip]

> Advertising offendees will always be offended no matter where advertising sophistication is at.

People won't be less affected if advertising is less harmful or pervasive...?

You aggregation function is broken. The impact of advertising is a not a boolean value.

[randcraw]

I won't be offended if advertisers can figure out which ads I won't respond to and then refrain from smacking me in the face with them. Or if they can avoid annoying me with moronic gimmicks like dancing lizards selling insurance.

I'm ready. Go ahead advertisers. Delight me with silence.